When is a country considered to be socialist??

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: strongfp

To some people even having one or two social programs that are paid for by taxes are seen as a full blown socialist state.

Because it is.

Lets take the big two. Social security and medicare.

Forced taxation of both employee, and employer.

Doesn't cover the benefits received.

New taxes are created like the Alterantive minimum tax.

More new taxes are created like the medicare capital gains surtax.

Keeping up ?

Quadruple taxation.

On top of printing fiat currency.

On top of borrowing from foreign countries like China.

For safety nets, and that 'awesome' free healthcare where it's premium is deducted from the social security monthly stipend.

SOCIALISM in Action.

Robbing every Peter to pay Paul.

But thats just taxation due to government overspend. Capitalist societies do that too. I dont think that this has anything to do with socialism, and can we really say that someone is being robbed when they can claim the amount back in goods and services?

For example, In France you pay out more when you are young but you can claim it back as a pension when you are older. They gave a crazy good system for supporting seniors, some people can even retire at 50.

a reply to: The2Billies

I think that idea falls apart due to competition. Anybody can set up in competition to the state and if they offer a better service then people will use it instead.

Socialism usually mandates the state provision of a service but doesn't stop others from running their own. For example in France the train system has heavy state ownership, but anybody can set up bus company. While England has a state housing system but anybody can set up their own private rental agency.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: strongfp


Forced taxation of both employee, and employer.

Isn't ALL taxation forced?

I guess that you could argue that sale tax is a choice, as you don't have to buy the product ... but still.

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

These are the jobs of ALL governments. This is what people pay taxes for. These are not socialist programs at all, they are the responsibility of government, especially local government - and without them no government would be worth having at all.

These things are NOT socialist, nor are they socialist programs.

This is what socialist point to as socialist programs to say that socialism is necessary and must be enacted in every country. This is not true at all, these are basic services of ALL forms of government and without them there is no government, just a rat hole for taxes.

A lot of people would argue that governments are there to govern, not to provide services. We have private schools and toll roads, and shouldn't a port be paid for by the people who actually use a port? If you live in inland do you really want your taxes paying for something that you'd never use?

On the other hand, in Europe running the railways is considered t be a basic function of government in many countries, or the telephone networks. For example in France the government owns the majority share in many railway companies and telecom companies, and in Britain the second biggest party competing in the next election is proposing to bring these things back under state control, and to nationalize broadband as a lot of people don't think that private companies are doing enough to supply services to the entire country and that they are only supplying the most profitable areas.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: AaarghZombies
I would not call a country socialist unless it was governed by a socialist party with an unbreakable grip on power. Just as the Communist countries would regard themselves as socialist states, because their ruling party could not lose elections.
A few policies on their own would not qualify. As an historical example, the Imperial German government under Bismarck introduced a lot of laws which could be called socialist, but Bismarck was just outflanking the socialists; he wasn't a socialist himself, and Imperial Germany wasn't a socialist country.

What about countries like France, Germany and the United Kingdom were all of the main political parties are essentially socialist, but don't actually use the word socialist in their name?

Why would they need an unshakable grip on power? That would suggest a dictatorship?

Take Israeli for example, it has a coalition government, and the main party in it is socialist, while its partners aren't. It doesn't have anything like an unshakable grip on power, but it's still there.

a reply to: AaarghZombies
I don't think you know much about politics in those countries.
The Conservative party in Britain, the governing party this week and hopefully next week, is not socialist; no more so than the Republican party. Socialists in Britain are concentrated mainly in the Labour party.
Similarly both France and Germany have manistream non-socialist parties opposing the socialist parties.
That's why I say that a country is not "a socialist country" as long as any socialist government can be voted out of office at the next election and replaced by non-socialists.

The "unshakable grip on power" is necessary before you can define a country as socialist. Is America a Democrat country? You would probably say not. Why not? Because the Democrats don't have an unshakable grip on power. They can be voted into office, and then voted out again, so the political nature of the party does not define the political nature of the country.